Detailed suggestions for revision:
L20 Please, add their size in m2, or their dimensions as well as their
total number.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We added the plot size
in m2 (Page 1, Line 21).
L25 define what is high in terms of mm/h.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We added the definition
of high-intensity in terms of mm/h (Page 2, Line 26).
L42 I would suggest you to use one and only one type of citing
references in the text, i.e. Adimasu et al., 2014. If there are two
authors, use Ramos & Martínez‐Casasnovas, 2009. For all the rest you
preferably use the short version First Author et al., 20xx.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We revised the
references according to your suggestion (Page 2, Line 43). And examined
the hole manuscript and corrected the references.
L55 Please, check the use of the word ”lost”. Why rainfall is lost?
Why quoting here this 70%? It can be less and it can be more? Please,
rephrase and make more relative this number.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We revised this sentence
to “about 70% of rainfall is converted to runoff” to make it more
accurate (Page 3, Line 58).
L64 there is a vast literature on this topic, only citing one paper it
is not enough to gwet away on the topic of rainfall interception and
rainfall losses in general (evapotranspiration, interception, stem
flow, infiltration,….)
Response: Thank you for your comments. We added references to
discuss rainfall interception and rainfall losses more comprehensively
(Page 4, Line 77-78).
L77 please, rephrase - evapotranspiration is a process, and can be
quantified (in mm), hydrology is field of science. Maybe soil wetness?
Response: Thank you for your comments. We revised “hydrology”
to “soil wetness” in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 5,
Line 90).
L97 There are many plots, but you have used only those close to
Beijing - precisely, only nine of them. Is this so?
Response: Thank you for your comments. We collected data from
31 runoff plots in Beijing for analysis. However, in the analysis of
vegetation factors, in order to better make other factors consistent, we
selected 9 plots with different vegetation coverage but consistent with
other factors for analysis. We revised this sentence to illustrated the
number of plots (Page 6, Line 122-124).
L100 give their number. Nine?
Response: Thank you for your comments. We revised this sentence
to “We collected 31 runoff plots” to illustrate the number of plots
(Page 6, Line 122).
L101 Can you say something about the vegetation coverage types?
Response: Thank you for your comments. We added the vegetation
coverage types (Page 6, Line 126-127).
L121 during a year - seasonally, or were these differences all the
time in place among the nine plots? You have later in your study used
classes for vegetation coverage from 5% to 90%. How were these
classes achieved/maintained?
Response: Thank you for your comments. Beijing’s rainy season
is mainly in July and August. The vegetation coverage of runoff plots is
controlled by planting density. Runoff plots are long-term monitoring
stations for soil erosion and are maintained every year.
L149 Please, add somewhere the distribution of 997 rainfall events for
each vegetation coverage class - or was the coverage different between
nine plots and fixed in time, and so, all rainfall events were
measured on all nine plots simultaneously?
Response: Thank you for your comments. All rainfall events were
measured on all nine plots simultaneously. We added instructions in the
manuscript (Page 6, Line 124-125).
L152-153 This is NOT true. Please rephrase: When vegetation coverage
was higher than 60%, their effect on runoff and sediment reduction
stays the same and does not change any more, even if it is as high as
90%.
Response: Thank you for your comments. When vegetation coverage
was higher than 60%, runoff and sediment decrease with the increase of
vegetation, but the difference was not significant. By that we mean a
statistically insignificant difference. To avoid misunderstanding, we
rewritten this sentence (Page 9, Line 192-193).
L172 Start a new paragraph, where you discuss low-intensity rainfall
events.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We have described the
low-intensity precipitation event in detail in Line 213-222.We added a
new section to analyze high-intensity precipitation events (Page 11,
Line 223-233).
L198-199 This comes here as a kind of surprise statement. Numerous
soil erosion models, such as e.g. RUSLE, use
rainfall
erosivity as an important soil erosion factor, incorporating directly
the highest rainfall intensity of 30-minutes into the equation.
Further discussion is badly needed in this regard (maybe in the
chapter Discussion).
Response: Thank you for your comments. According to your
Suggestions, we incorporated rainfall erodibility into the analysis, and
found that rainfall erodibility was highly correlated with soil erosion
and nutrient loss, and the rainfall erodibility was incorporated into
the equation in the regression model. We added discussion in this regard
(Page 12, Line 244-247).
L239-241 You are using plural, but cite only one study? Please, avoid
such statements, or find other references that maybe are telling you
something different. Please, rephrase, or make this statement more
relative, i.e. account for specific study site conditions in this one
reference.
Response: Thank you for your comments. According to your
suggestion, we revised the sentence (Page 16, Line 330-332).
L248 Another example of a clearly too strong statement to be taken so
generally as it is written. Please, rephrase, or add more references
in this regard and enlarge the discussion. As you have not studied
interception and rainfall losses in canopies, please, be careful with
such statements.
Response: Thank you for your comments. According to your
suggestion, we rephrased this sentence (Page 16, Line 343-345).
L437 Should be rearranged to be in order alphabetically.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We rearranged the
reference in order alphabetically (Page 23, Line 571-573).
L475 This reference is not used in the text. Please, use it in the
text or delete in from the list.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We deleted this
reference in the list (Page 23, Line 594-596)
Fig.1 Could you, please, adjust the DEM limit values for Low to start
at ”0” and not ”-121”?
Response: Thank you for your comments. We revised the DEM limit
value for Low to start at “0” in the Figure 1.
Fig.7 Would the SEM models be different if you split the rainfall
events into high- and low-intensity events? Have you tried that?
Response: Thank you for your comments. We made a distinction
between high-intensity rainfall events and low-intensity rainfall events
for soil erosion (Fig. 5). Similarly, we tried to distinguish soil
nutrient loss under high-intensity and low-intensity rainfall events.
The results were similar to Figure 5, so we did not distinguish rainfall
intensity here.
Fig.8 This Figure 8 is not used in the text - please, use it in the
appropriate section of the manuscript.
Response: Thank you for your comments. Figure 8 was explained
in the result section for 3.5 (Page 13, Line 269).
Table 1 Please, add a legend below the table to explain acronyms. RO,
SL, P, N, COD,… You should use ASCM instead, as in the text, or at
least add this explanation ASMC to the ”Moisture”. This is strange
unit. Please, use mm instead, to have the same units as for rainfall.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We added a legend below
the table 1 to explain acronyms and we revised “Moisture” to “ASMC”
(Table 1).
Graphical abstract You were using the expression ”coverage” instead of
cover. Why 20%? IS it not only 60% relevant?
Response: Thank you for your comments. According to the author
guide, we modified the text for the part of the Graphic Abstract.